On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> This was discovered while testing/reviewing the latest version of the >> INCLUDE covering indexes patch. It now seems to be unrelated. > > Oh, wait ... I wonder if you saw that because you were running a new > backend without having re-initdb'd?
Yes. That's what happened. > Once you had re-initdb'd, then > of course there would be no old-format btree indexes anywhere. But > if you hadn't, then anyplace that was not prepared to cope with the > old header format would complain about pre-existing indexes. > > In short, this sounds like a place that did not get the memo about > how to cope with un-upgraded indexes. Sounds plausible. -- Peter Geoghegan